tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN January 10, 2018 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
congress' original intent. the nlra does not have jurisdiction over tribal government. mr. speaker, i urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 3 minutes and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: over three months ago, the funding for the children's health insurance program or chip, expired. today, families throughout the country, including 90,000 children in my home state of colorado, face great uncertainty about their future of their health care. when chip was first passed over 20 years ago, it was done in a bipartisan manner and until recently, chip has always been a bipartisan, nondivisive issue. it's unfortunate to see that today, here we are in this body, under republican leadership, somehow even children's health insurance has become a political football, while we wile away our
time, precious legislative time, on bill that was passed this body before and don't go anywhere. in our most recent band-aid for government funding, house republicans made a claim that chip was extended until march 31. but that wasn't the case. by some reports states could run out of funding in the next few weeks. in colorado, our budget experts predict we'll run out of children's health insurance money by the end of february. cancellation letters are literally scheduled to go out at the end of this month. mr. speaker, this simply isn't a way to govern. crisis to crisis, ignoring the real issues people care about to consider special interest legislation. what's the republican leadership and trump administration continue to refuse to work on finding a bipartisan solution for the hundreds of thousands of deferred action for childhood arrival, for daca recipients, who are in limbo. we can put that bill on the floor today, the dream act.
i feel it would pass. we have the votes to do so. mr. speaker, let's simply have a vote. it's a purely manufactured crisis. i'm happy to say we'll be giving the opportunity for members of this body to defeat the previous question and move to a vote on the dream act shortly. my colleague, mr. correa, has joined us to offer that motion in a few minutes. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often say that the real deadline for a daca solution isn't until march. every day already over 100 deferred action recipients lose their protected status, are unable to work, and with their situation unresolved. for those daca recipients, the deadline isn't every day alread deadline has already passed. hence the urgency. now is the time to pass the dream act to allow these daca recipients it continue to live and work and serve in the only nation that many of them have ever known in their whole lives. all the while congressional
republicans still refuse it work with democrats on a long-term government funding solution. here we're less than 10 days from another government shutdown. the federal government continues to move from quick spending patch to quick spending patch costing taxpayers more in the long run by preventing our agencies from doing the planning necessary to improve efishency. today we're -- efishency. today we're only five legislative days, nine actual days from a government shutdown and the huge negative repercussion that is would follow. as a former business other i know firsthand the value of long-term budgeting and stability. millions of americans know how to plan their family budget and home budget. why can't congress do it for the country? instead of working on a long-term budget solution, instead the house is spending its time on other legislation. here we have a bill that undermines workers' rights and their protections under the national labor relations act. in addition to this controversial bill, there is two attached pieces of legislation that were originally separate bills that easily could have gone on the suspension calendar
and would have largely been noncontroversial. they passed on a unanimous consent request in the senate and in the house natural resources committee, but their te is put in jeopardy by putting them on a controversial bill. the first bill changes the act of 2010 to clarify a separate economic development fund can be accessed to cover potential cost overruns for this rural water project. interior department said it's unsure it could be used for settlement cost. this clarifies the projects would specifically include the planning, design, and construction of the rural water system. this legislation could have passed and likely become to law but has been mutt in jeopardy that's been added to bay. the second bill is regarding the authority of pueblos. it concerns new new mexican pueblos and clarifies they could lease their lands held in trust by the federal government for 99 years. this legislation ensures native
americans have the right to their lands that they deserve. it respects their sovereignty as nations in a noncontroversial way. i'm a supporter of these two technical and simple pieces of legislation, unfortunately because they are attached to a bill that isn't going anywhere are unlikely to become law. these are the types of bills that could go straight to the suspension calendar and to the senate and signed by the president. instead they are being put in jeopardy by lumping them in a bill that is unlikely to become law. these -- there are so many of these types of natural resource committee bills, from both democrats and republicans, it should be making their way forward as stand alone items. i'm glad, for instance, one i authored, the wedge act, two that i authored, were put forward and passed by this house attached to other controversial legislation. i'm also reintroducing a bill that i also consider noncontroversial, the continental attached to other controversial legislation. dwil wilderness and legacy act bill t would preserve over 90,000 acres in summit and eastern county
enforced by local businesses, commissioners, and towns across the area. it was crafted with input from dozens of stakeholder groups including the wilderness society, the outdoor industry association, international mountain biking association, conservation colorado, and many municipalities and local businesses. it will help sustain our recreational economy. protect water sheds, and preserve important wildlife corridors. and tourism opportunities. these are the kinds of bills we should be moving forward from the natural resources committee. not controversial bills that actually take away the rights of american citizens, including native american citizens. although while we're not today, we should never be moving forward on natural resource bills that actually widell away at the public lands we own and antiquities act by shrinking monuments like bears ears or making it easier to destroy lands we cherish and value. all i ask is we separate out these resource bills and send
them to the suspension calendar and not be put in jeopardy by affixing them to the underlying legislation which is controversial, the tribal labor bill. that is the bill that is the main controversial bill in this package. of course i stand here as a supporter of the rights of every american to organize. supporters of workers rights. i'm also a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty. both not only principles under the right w, but thing to do. unlike many of my colleagues, place a great deal of importance in tribalself derpgs, autonomy, local control, and independent governance for our nations. in fact, i have been the champion of sovereignty and i have long voted in favor of legislation that allows tribal discretion in the judicial processes and education. but of course the right thing the right to organize is an unalienable right of every american. protecting our workers, including native american workers torques fight for a safe and working environment regardless of what entity owns the company they work for. legislation balancing these two competing principles is possible. reconciling these two priorities
can be difficult, but i think there is a way to do it. instead, this bill drives a wedge between issues or groups that have a histry of working strongly together. such as native americans and unions. we can balance critical rights to sovereignty. with the protection that is are due to every american citizen regardless of their race, ethnicity, unions. we can balance critical rights cultural practices, or membership in indian nation or governing structures. this legislation does not find the right balance. it hurts workers of all stripes colors, including many native american workers. workers have the right to collectively bargain. otherwise workplaces become unsafe. xual harassment can go unchecked. this legislation would strip native americans and nonnative americans who--many of whom work for native american enterprideses of the right to collectively bargain. without the right to self-governs, we would not have the strong communities present across the country today. to collective ht
bargaining, we would not have the strong and growing economy that supports our middle class. this legislation simply does not succeed in balancing both to co these values. i also want to point out that president trump agrees with me. or at least did he last time he commented on this 25 years ago. in 1993, at a hearing before the house committee on natural resources regarding the indian gaming regulatory act, then private citizen trump testified regarding the legal barriers facing labor unions at that time to organize workers employed at tribal casinos. his testimony said in part, quote, at present even union workers in states like new jersey with no federally or state protected rights or the ability to organize casinos on tribal lands. the unions hope to do something about this, they hope to gain the right to recognition and organize if they so choose. i hope they have bert luck than we have had so far. end quote. mr. speaker, the last time the president commented on this it's clear that he also believed that workers on tribal lands should have the right to collectively bargain. i hope that his administration would not be supportive of this legislation if it were to move
through congress, which is unlikely to do. instead of policies that benefit those at the top, i have a number of ideas that i'll be talking about later that we can move forward to empower workers and help make sure that the 21st century economy works for everyone. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. . -- the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. my good friend from colorado covered a loft ground. let me try to respond to some of that area because a lot didn't have a whole lot to do with the legislation until the final phase of his remarks. in terms of chip, we actually agree. i think that's something -- frankly this house should be proud it passed a chip bill on a bipartisan basis months ago. and our real problem is the united states senate simply hasn't produced the legislation. doesn't have to accept our legislation, it just needs to pass a chip bill so we could go to conference and bargain. i am pleased that both sides
have worked to make sure that when we have done extensions of government spending as we work through some these knotty issues we're -- continue to fund chip. i think the leadership on both sides of the aisle have been clear about that. i think we will. great when uld be the senate finally passes a bill we make this part after larger spending bill. in terms of my friends' points about the dream act, i'm honestly heartened at the discussion that took place at the white house yesterday. i think there is a genuine desire to come to an agreement on daca. but the real issue there is border security in addition to legal status. i these folks obviously, think, deserve legal status. but you also have to fix the problem. the problem's on the border. the outline of the deal is there if people approach it in good faith on both sides of the aisle. fact that we had
leadership in both parties eting with the president yesterday as a good sign in that regard. in terms of the budget, we probably have at least some areas of agreement. my friend didn't vote for it, but it's worth noting the house passed every single appropriations bill before the september 30 deadline. we have been waiting now for over yesterday as a good sign in that regard. in terms of the budget, 120 day states senate to just pass a single appropriations bill. we're in discussion was them now. i think at some point when there is an agreement as to what the top line number is, and i think we might not be too far away from that, then we'll be able to proceed. again this house has done its work. just as it did on chip. it's produced legislation on time and is prepared to sit down and negotiate with the senate decides it senate can get around getting its job done. terms of the national labor relations act, the tribal
sovereignty portion of this bill, let me point out a couple things. my friend does have an excellent record, honestly, in terms of support our native americanish -- american issues. this is an issue we disagree. there will be republicans and democrats who terms of the nati relations act, the tribal sovereignty portion of this bill, let me oppose this legislation. there will be republicans and democrats who support this legislation. it's not really purely a partisan question at all. but it's worth noting the indian community is awfully united on this issue. the national congress of the american indians, over 150 tribal organizations and individual tribes, have come and asked the congress to correct his oversight. the fact that this happened in the way it did, that is the national labor relations board on its own to extend its jurisdiction. had no instructions from congress to do that. had no request from the administration to do that. they just decided they would do it all. at is my definition of a regulatory body run amock. -- amuck.
for almost 70 years the nlrb recognized it did not have jurisdiction in this area and did not try to do it. this is a very new thing. it aroused opposition in indian country immediately. again, we don't apply these standards to any state government or local government. we have lots of state governments and lots of local governments involved in activity that is are not strictly governmental. they run municipal golf courses. they do water parks. they do parks -- none of these things are necessarily inherently government. they are not forced to comply with this. so we should extend to tribal governments, which we historically have done, the exact same status and rights in this regard as we do to state and local governments. we would all be pretty upset if the federal government decided it would interject itself in this way in the affairs of any individual state or any of the individual localalities we represent. working for a public entity is
different. rights, but have there are restrictions. you have certain rights like the right to strike most states, most localities do not exist. tribes rights, but there are restrictions. you have certain rights like sh right to make those decisions for themselves. again, they resent and have resented historically the violation of their sovereignty, in this case a regulatory agency without the authority of this body, without the authority of the administration that existed at that time, acted on its own. restore us the sovereignty that you accorded us. that's what this legislation does. my friend says it's unlikely to become law. i beg to disagree. not only did it pass the house on a bipartisan vote in the last congress, this congress it's been reported out of the senate indian affairs committee on a bipartisan vote. we'll see what the administration does, but i
suspect views change over 25 years, and i would hope the administration is supportive of this. as a matter of fact, as i recall, i think they issued a statement to that effect. so regardless, let's do our job. let's continue to do the job of the last congress when on a bipartisan basis republicans and democrats alike decided tribal sovereignty was an important issue. we should work together to defend it and expand it. in this case we're working to reclaim something that a federal agency took away acting on its own over a decade ago. so the solution to this is long overdue and with that, mr. speaker, i would certainly, you know, urge my friends to support the rule and more importantly the underlying -- excuse me -- legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, when we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule, not just any amendment, but an amendment to bring up the bipartisan, bicameral bill,
h.r. 3440, the dream act. it's far past time that we consider this urgent piece of legislation that is tearing apart the -- that is tearing apart the lives of over thousands of americans every y who you and i take for granted, go to work every day. if we fail to act approximately 122 dreamers lose their legal ability to work. mr. speaker, even republicans have called for a vote on this critical issue. at the end of last year, 34 republican colleagues sent a letter to speaker ryan urging a vote before the year's end. although a vote never happened, a vote mr. correa is giving us a chance to take now. how much longer will this body be complicit in the trump administration's assault on dreamers? it's time we listen to the vast majority of americans and majority of this body and act
to protect courageous, aspiring americans like the group from colorado i met with yesterday. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: to discuss our proposal, i am glad to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. correa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. correa: thank you, mr. speaker. recently my daughter came home from high school accompanied by two of her good friends. these young ladies are about 16 years of age. they wanted to sit down and talk to me a little bit so we sat down and spoke. while i learned these young ladies were very nervous, very scared, they were dreamers and they had a basic question for me which was, what can we do, what can you do for us? very, very tough questions. after a moment i answered them, continue to study hard, continue to follow the law, be
good students and don't give up home. at the same time i told them, i said, don't worry about washington, d.c. i'm going to washington to fight for you. and that's what we're doing here today. myself and my colleagues fighting for dreamers, fighting to make sure they have a shot at the american dream. i'm happy to say today that dreamers enjoy the support of not only democrats but republicans as well on this floor. why? because all of us know who dreamers are. dreamers are hardworking individuals. they serve in our military. they're soldiers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, teachers, and of course they are also our neighbors. and dreamers, also, are very good immigrants. they pay their taxes, follow the law, and you know what, they provide value to our country. recently, i also had the
opportunity to visit my son's high school. the air force naval rotc program. i went to be part of what's called a pass and review. some very nice honorable young cadets passing and reviewing, all saluting the flag of the united states, all taking pledge of allegiance to our country and to our flag. and you know something, a lot of those cadets were dreamers. members of this body, today we have the chance to do what's right. we have a chance to do our job. let the dreamer legislation come before us for a vote and let's give the dreamers the opportunity to earn the american dream and, folks, let's not live with regrets. let's not look back five, 10, 15 years from now and say, what we could've should've' woodive'. now is the time to vote for our
dreamers. i ask my colleagues to please vote against the previous question so we can immediately bring up the dream act to vote for justice and equity. mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i appreciate that. again, i certainly respect my friends' right to bring up a subject they think is important and is important. it's appropriate that they use their time to do that. i would remind them that there is negotiation under way, and i think the issue here is less about daca probably and more about border security. the issues are naturally paired together. these young people came here through no fault of their own. they are not responsible for any sort of criminal act, but they were transported across a very porous border. and so to ensure that you're
not here, again, doing the same thing again, strengthening that border at the same time that you provide legal status seems the appropriate thing to do. and i suspect neither is achievable without the other linked together. so i take it that the two sides are negotiating. i am not involved in those negotiations. not a member of the relevant committees. but i think the two sides are involved in that negotiation. my hope is they come to an agreement and that we can have a large bipartisan victory, piece of legislation that we're all proud of. i suspect it's going to take some give and take to achieve that. i do want to go back, though, to the principal underlying legislation here. and ask my friends, many of whom by the way will support this legislation. there will be considerable democratic support for this. but i would hope and, again, i understand this is an issue of competing goods but sovereignty is not something we should
grant to states and localities and deny indian tribes. we should not have a double standard here. if we need to make changes across the entire labor relations board, -- labor relations act, fair enough. i guess we should consider that. but we should not single out tribes and make them subject to capricious, arbitrary, bureaucratic activity, deciding on what their legal status is, what their rights are and interfere with their ability to operate their own businesses which are absolutely indispensible to supporting their governmental activities. we do not give tribes the power to tax. they can't their own land. they can't tax their own citizens. if they're not successful economically, they have to rely on the limited resources given by the federal government to everything from protecting their citizens to providing health care for their citizens to making sure that there's appropriate education for their
citizens. they ought to be able to do what other governments do and earn money and run their own affairs. we allow states to do that. we allow localities to do that. for almost 70 years we allowed indian tribes to do that. we took it away from them. they are asking something that was taken from them in terms of their sovereignties to be restored to them. -- sovereignty to be restored to them. again, i urge passage of the underlying legislation. i hope we continue to work on these other issues that my friends have brought up. we are working in areas like chip and the daca question and border security question. let's also take our time and pass this very important piece of legislation and restore to indian tribes what the national labor relations board took away from them over a decade ago. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is
recognized. mr. polis: thank you. i want to address some of the things that my colleague, mr. cole, said. i mean, the big difference here between tribal owned and run businesses in state and local governments is state and local governments are generally not in the own of owning, operating companies with very few exceptions. we don't have a socialist form of government in this country where cities or states are actually operating businesses in competition with the private sector. tribes in addition to their tribal workers, which are more anational just to state and local workers, which is an appropriate discussion, happen to own businesses which is fine and they produce revenue for the tribes which is great. however, they should play by the same economic rules by other businesses which no way should impede businesses of succeeding in this country. they are the main source of income for tribes. if our labor laws work for any other business, they should also work for them. american citizens, including native american citizens of our country, don't lose their
rights as workers because of the ownership of the organization and company that they happen to be employed by. that is something that needs to be balanced with of course tribal sovereignty which i am a strong supporter of. if the discussion were simply about tribal employees, it would be a different discussion. to be clear, it's about businesses that are owned by tribes. and we simply don't have an analogy on the state and local side with very few exceptions. i'm sure there's one somewhere. but in general municipalities, counties are not the owners of operating businesses that compete in the private sector. now, i want to talk about what's possible with regard to enhancing the rights of workers and labor instead of these kinds of policies that take away the rights of workers, including native american workers. we should be moving forward on policies that put workers first. my bill, the giving workers a fair shot act, would do that.
the bill would provide reasonable solutions to address the growing inequality in the united states by helping workers ensuring companies follow the law, emphasizing the need for corporate accountability. it would remove unfair obstacles to forming a union, enhance transparency from employers and increase penalties for violating our labor laws which are strong but often not enforced. first, all too often employers frequently drag their feet on a newly formed union for months. often with the goal of avoiding an agreement. sometimes it means a null certified union -- newly certified union would -- my bill would set up the contract system where the employer or employee has the option of seeking mediation if they feel no taxpayer not -- funds are used for union busting or persuaders,
planning, implementing activities that deter employees for joining or forming a union. again, it simply makes sure no taxpayer funds are used for that explicit purpose. third, the bill updates the national labor relations act definition of supervisor. too often workers are reclassified as supervisors for effectively gerrymandering bargaining units. this definition prevents that sort of manipulation and would make it easier for employees to be able to form a union if they so choose. fourth, the bill reaffirms the government to protect workers from having their vites -- rights violated from executives who violate critical labor laws. injured workers and worker deaths should never be simply a cost of doing business. these robust protections help make sure this is truly a criminal issue for the few bad actors that exist on the employer side. finally, the legislation empowers shareholders and creates new accountability for c.e.o.'s and executives by
preventing the c.e.o. and chairman at a publicly traded company from being the same person. we'd all love to work for ourselves, but that's not in the long-term economic interest of the shareholders, the customers or the workers. the bill also expands insider trading restrictions for executives to one year after they leave a company. in my district and across colorado, people are clamoring for proactive policies that actually help acess the income gap and put the needs of middle-class families and workers first, policies like the giving workers a fair shot act would do that. now, this legislation that we're seeing here today is not the only controversial legislation we're seeing this week. unfortunately, the next rule up will be one that takes away our constitutional rights as americans. the fisa re-authorization legislation has been described as a compromise but that's not the case. this legislation is not the necessary fisa reform bill that many in congress, including myself, have called for, which is why i and so many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle are opposed to it in its form and support the amash-polis amendment and why the current fisa re-authorization bill is opposed not only by privacy and civil liberties groups but also technology companies and job creators across the political spectrum. if this bill passes it will make it harder for american companies to engage in international commerce. many countries in europe, for example, will simply refuse to do business with a technology company that's housed in the u.s. because they are afraid what will happen to their citizens' data. maybe in controvention of their own laws. this is not in the form of reform that's necessary. it falls short on several grounds. in fact in some ways it makes the fisa program worse by codifying the, quote, about collections, end quote, term that refers to the n.s.a. searching through the internet traffic to collect communications to and from and also those that simply mention
an identifier used by a target even though it's been declared unconstitutional twice. it could be the name of a city or state or even a country. . -- that could be in theory subjecting close to 100% of tax and emails and internet traffic to warrantless searches. this bill fails to consider the core concern i have and many members on both sides of the aisle share. namely the government's use of section 702 information against american citizens in investigation that is have nothing to do without national security does not require a warrant or the due process of our constitution. the bill codifies the ability of the government to access the content of our emails and telephone calls without a warrant. it creates an unprecedented and unworkable optional warrant which is window dressing, but does nothing to address the legitimate concerns. these massive flaws could have been addressed if we proceeded
under regular order, but this version was reported only from the intelligence committee and bypassed the judiciary committee which was cut out of negotiations when they agreed to go along with the intelligence committee's railroading their committee. that's why i signed a bipartisan letter with dozens of other members demanding fisa be handled under regular order. i'm proud to have offered the amendment that will be considered later with representatives lofgren and amash and others that will provide a better path to keep american citizens safe and protect our privacy and ensure american companies can remain competitive abroad. it would protect our constitutional rights and keep us safe. my amendment which is based off the u.s.a. rights act, end reverse targeting, bans collections, and looks for transparency. i think these are necessary changes that americans have been demanding for years. i ask all my colleagues to oppose the fisa re-authorization and support the amendment when they are brought forth. i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i want to yield myself such time as i may consume to respond to a couple of my friend's points. i yield two minutes to my good riend from texas, dr. burgess. begin, i'm going to disagree respectfully with my friend's assertion that people are having their rights stripped away. the only people losing their rights here are indian tribes. that's what happened when the nlrb did what it did and without the direction of congress or the administration decided to on its own it would treat indian tribal governments different than other governments. it's those rights to the tribal governments that we're busy trying to restore. my friend, who again, is very good on indian issues as a rule. i understand the competing claims here. i recognize the tension that's involved in that. but it's not as if tribal governments don't have their own labor codes and their own standards. and frankly those have to comply with american law. under the indian civil rights
act of 1965, there's absolutely nothing a tribal government can do that would contravene the guaranteed rights of the united states constitution for all americans. so to suggest they are somehow violating the rights of american workers i think is to mischaracterize who they are and how they have acted. what they have said is if we're sovereign, if the federal government says that state governments and local governments are allowed to regulate their own work forces, then tribal governments are allowed to do the same. i'm going to disagree also with my friend. there are lots of municipal golf courses in the united states. there are lots of municipal water slides. there are park systems. you can go to the state of virginia and it happens to own the liquor business in the state. it's decided it's going to make that a state function. we don't regulate those employees. the idea that just because it's a money making activity that we then somehow treat it differently, we don't do that to any locality or any state in the country. we just had an un-elected
federal agency decide on its own it was going to do that to indian tribes. it's not doing it to anybody else. just to tribes. i would submit that that is fundamentally unfair. again, nobody's rights are taken away. every american citizen has exactly the same rights. you don't have precisely the same rights that you do in the private sector if you work for the federal government. same thing is true here. if you choose to go to work for a tribele a government, you live within that greem. that regime has to comport with the constitution and the laws of the united states, and you have not lost your action rights in federal court if you think there is a violation. i think this is a case crystal clear. you treat everybody the same way. every governmental unit the same way. that's all the tribes are asking for. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend, dr. burgess, distinguished member of both the rules committee and energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the
gentleman for yielding. i want to thank him for his work as chairman of the subcommittee that deals with funding. the appropriations subcommittee that deals with funding public health as well as medical research. i heard some comments about the funding for the extension of the funding for children's health insurance program at the beginning of the debate. i wanted to come to the floor and remind people that the energy and commerce committee did do its work as far as continuing the funding for the children's health insurance program. it completed its work. we delayed a little bit at the request of committee democrats. we delayed a little bit at the request of the ranking member of the full committee. we did deliver a product the first part of october. that product passed the floor of house late october, early november. it passed. almost every republican vote, and over two dozen democratic votes. it was a bipartisan effort. it funded the children's health insurance program for five years, which was the democratic request. it funded -- funding levels or requested by the democrats.
and it was offset in a responsible way. that bill is pending over in the united states senate and i frankly do not understand house november. why ssed the senate minority leader will not release that bill for a vote by his senators because it is, after all, democratic senators that represent states around this country that are going to suffer as a consequence of not passing this bill. i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from oklahoma riffs. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire of the gentleman from oklahoma if he has any remaining speakers. mr. cole: i'm prepared to close. mr. polis: i am prepared to close. i yield my southwest balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i want to address something my friend, mr. cole said. i'm sure you can find few instances of municipal and state government. i'm sure the gentleman would agree relative to size they are very few and far between. even most municipal golf courses are run by private operators
under contract to municipalities. i'm sure the gentleman could find a couple that aren't. the disproportionate share -- the effect of tribal nations as owners and operating businesses, including those in my district, i have interacted with businesses in my district owned by tribal nations. there are unanimous of provisions in law to help them. i support those. but i do believe that workers don't give up their rights simply because they work for a company that happens to be owned by a tribal nation as opposed to an american. or even a native american citizen of our country who in their personal capacity is the owner of a company. we would then be at a disadvantage, would then have -- not disadvantage, would have -- would not have the same ability to deprive workers of their rights as a company that was owned by his or her tribe. again, we want to make sure we support tribal autonomy. i do, and perhaps there is a
bill to be had here, but it's not this bill. i want to share the story of one of my constituents from fort collins, colorado, that i think will bring this back to what our body should be doing. i understand there's argue the on both sides. i understand there is people on both sides of the aisle that have concerns and also that support this bill. it is not the urgency that we ce with regard to deferred action or child health insurance. in july of 2017, carla and her husband found out they were expecting another child. both carla and her husband work full-time. carla workers at a local childcare certainty. her husband works at a local retail store. even with their two full-time incomes, like many americans, they felt the children's health insurance was the only medical coverage for them. carla enrolled in chip. now carla is due to deliver her baby in march of this year. but she worries when the baby comes she won't have medical coverage anymore.
unfortunately, carla's right to worry. right now colorado is expected to run out of chip funding at the end of february, a few weeks before carla is due. that's why this issue is so urgent, mr. speaker. for the tens of thousands of children and pregnant women like carla, we can't wait another minute to provide a permanent extension of the children's health insurance program. instead of finding a bipartisan children's health insurance program or deferred action will have differing opinions on, i feel it children's health insurance program or deferred action or to keep government opened, instead here we have yet another bill that people underm rights and is not supportive in the way i would be of the rights of our nations. it's unfortunately another example of misguided priorities. we have precious little time. i believe four days until the funding of government expires. we should have acted on children's health insurance program last year.
we should have acted on deferred action last year. we need to act now. for that reason, i oppose the underlying bill. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time of the the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized to close. mr. cole: i yield the balance of my time to my sefment the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i want to thank -- thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend, and i want to stress while we disagree on this, i appreciate his efforts on native american issues. he has a record that i think is an excellent record overall. we just disagree very profoundly in this case. i will say this, if you happen to just casually turn on the coverage of the debate at any point, you might wonder what we were debating about because in the course of the debate we have talked about chip, we have talked about the dreamers, we have talked about the budget, we have talked about fisa. spent a lot of time talking about a lot of different things other than the information at hand. i don't begrudge that to my friend. he feels very passionately about
those areas. it is interesting to me on the fisa thing we'll have a debate tomorrow. the amendment that my friend supports will be in order tomorrow. we'll have an opportunity to do that. i think there are good faith efforts under way on both sides on the daca issue and on the issue of fisa. and particularly on the issue of the budget as well. again, i wish this place worked a little differently. sometimes deadlines are like alarm clocks around here, but those things are under way. what we're talking about today is also an effort that's been waged by indian nations for over a dozen years. to try and reclaim part of their sovereignty that was unjustly taken away from. i am going to disagree with my friend very profoundly. nobody's rights have been taken away. every american's rights are guaranteed by the constitution of the united states. the indian civil rights asket 1965 makes it clear no tribe can
do anything in contravention and restrict the rights of americans. the only people that have lost rights in this whole discussion and episode have been tribal governments who had their right to regulate their labor affairs the same way we allow states and localities to do it. take it away from them. it wasn't taken away from them by an act of this congress. we never passed legislation. it wasn't taken away from them because the administration in power at the time ordered some agency, executive branch to do sfplgt it was taken away because acting in a rogue manner the national labor relations board on its own decided it would expand its legal authority. well, that's great. they may have a case to make, but that's not what they are supposed to do. they are supposed to operate within the authority that congress gives them. if they think they need a grant of additional authority, then they come to congress and ask for that grant of additional authority. they don't simply on their own decide they will willy-nilly violate the rights of a sovereign native american
nation. that's exactly what happened in this case. frankly the tribes have been extraordinarily patient in pursuing the remedy to this. i think we ought to, today, take the opportunity to rectify a wrong that an agency of the executive branch did without the consent of congress or even without the consent of the president of the united states at the time and allow tribes to reclaim the authority that they exercised for over 70 years. if we think we need to do something different in that regard, that's a fair point to make. if we do, it needs to be the same for state governments and local governments. you don't single tribes out as sovereignty entities and impose something on them that doesn't apply to everybody else that's a subordinate sovereignty of the united states. sovereign of the united states of america. mr. speaker, in closing, i want tone courage all members to support the rule -- to encourage all my members to support the rule, and i recognize my friends probably will not.
that's a normal partisan debate. with this 140 the house is taking steps to strengthen tribal sovereignty. this body has a good record. i worked with my friends across the aisle when we passed the violence against women act, and -- which had a very important component giving tribes back some of the jurisdiction that they needed to regulate domestic abuse and sexual assault on o their own territory. my friends were overwhelmingly supportive and helpful in that measure. would not have happened without them. i know in many cases we do agree. n this case, in this bill, they will be exempted. this legislation will reverse the bureaucratic overreach of the nlrb and clarify the law once and for all. this bill is a commonsense solution that will clarify the original intent of congress and the n -- that the nlrb does not have jurisdiction over tribal
governments. i applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this work. we'll actually have a split decision over this. some republicans will be supporting my friend's position but by and large i think the house will do what they did last time, passing it, given the action of the senate indian affairs committee, we know he this will be picked up and sent to the president's desk where i am confident it will be signed. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. collins: mr. speaker, collection collection -- by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 682. the clerk: house calendar 116, house resolution 682. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill s. 139, to implement the use of rapid d.n.a. instruments to inform decisions about pretrial release or
detention and their conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and other crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent d.n.a. analysis backlogs, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115- 53 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary, two, the further amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by
the member designated in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question, and three, one motion to commit with or without nstructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. collins mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on house resolution 682, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the rules committee. the rule provides for consideration of s. 139, the
fisa amendments re-authorization act. the rule provides for one hour of debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the house permanent select committee on intelligence and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee. the rule also provides for a motion to recommit. additionally, the rule makes in order an amendment offered by mr. amash representing ideas from members of both side of the aisle. the rules committee received testimony from numerous members, including chairman nunes, ranking member, mr. schiff. we also heard from judiciary committee ranking member nadler, congressman farenthold, congressman amash, congresswoman lofgren and also congressman poe. in addition to the vigorous debate before the rules committee, both the judiciary committee and intelligence committee held markups on legislation to re-authorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. today, we have the opportunity to pass an important piece of legislation that will enhance our national security and strengthen protections of americans' privacy.
mr. chairman, i'd like to publicly thank chairman goodlatte and chairman nunes for the important work on this legislation. as a result of their efforts, the legislation we will consider today will protect the privacy rights of individual americans without hindering the intelligence community ability and identities of our enemies. the value that we place on these duties is reflected by the fact that they are enshrined in the preamble to the constitution, to provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community try to defeat our foreign adversaries, whether they are terrorists, hostile foreign states or nuclear proliferators. our constitution tasks each branch of government with constantly working to protect the liberty of every american. with a bill provided for by this rule, the chamber will be considering legislation that will help us better achieve both. the fisa amendments re-authorization act will
extend the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or fisa, title 70 -- for six years while increasing oversight of its implementation at every level and providing for more robust privacy protections for americans. section 702 of fisa has proven to be an invaluable tool for collecting foreign intelligence and providing insight into the plans and intentions of our enemies. it's one of the national security administration's most important operational authorities. it permits the government to conduct targeted surveillance of foreign persons located outside the united states with the compelled assistance with electronic communication service providers to require foreign intelligence information. mr. speaker, this program is important to the national security cannot be overstated. while many examples of successes are classified in nature, i can tell you here today it's helped protect the homeland and american people. one declassified example that i can share with you concerns the story of haji who rose through
the ranks of isis, eventually becoming the terrorist organization's second in command. for more than two years the intelligence community searched for amman. they used their section 702 resources which eventually led them to him. mr. speaker, the gentleman was a terrorist. he was killed -- he was a murderer. mr. speaker, mr. applean was killed by u.s. special forces on march 24, 2016, during an attempt to apprehend here. we may not see every victory but these initiatives help protect americans every day. let us pause to note, however, that with the broad authority granted by a program like 702 to collect foreign intelligence information to fight our foreign enemies, it must come expansive safeguards against abuse of that authority and the expansive oversight of its use.
to ensure that the authorities under section 702 do not come into conflict with the liberty and privacy interest of the american people, the feesa amendments act -- the fisa amendments act expands on the already extensive safeguard. mr. speaker, as i said each branch of government is responsible for protecting the liberties of the american people. in the executive branch there are extensive and internal controls to review and approve actions under 702. the npor general for the intelligence -- the inspector general for the intelligence community are tasked with a comprehensive review of this program's implementation. mandatory internal procedures, known as targeting and minimumization procedures, also govern the collection use and dissemination of information are in place at each agency that uses fisa section 702. the fisa amendments re-authorization act expands upon the internal protections by requiring each agency to also adopt querying procedures to control how each agency
searches its database for 702 acquired communications. this brings me to the judicial branch. the targeting procedures must e approved annually by the foreign intelligence security court. with the aid of amicus security briefs, they have reviews of section 702's implementation for compliance with the constitution and the law. his legislation will enhance fisk with the authority to compensate amicus briefs and technical experts. finally, there is congress where we come to. the committees on judiciary and intelligence have conducted multiple oversight hearings and meeting in both classified and unclassified settings. numerous insights came from those hearings and the legislation that will be considered under today's rule reflects them well. the bill makes a number of
improvements that will enhance the congressional oversight in coming years. mr. speaker, it's time to remember one more group that remains critical to protecting americans' liberties, american men and women themselves. this legislation will improve transparency and public oversight of fisa 702, section 702 by requiring the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to conduct declassification review and publicly release the fisa section 702 minimumization procedures every year. mr. speaker, the most important reform contained in this legislation constitutes the most substantial reform to the program since its inception. under this legislation, the f.b.i. will be required when conducting a criminal investigation of a u.s. person to obtain a warrant from the fisc prior to accessing the content of the communications that were required using 702. 702 information is collected for the purpose of foreign intelligence -- collected for the purpose of foreign intelligence operations and this critical requirement closes the possibility that f.b.i. investigating americans
for traditional crimes will be able to use 702 information in such domestic investigations. in addition to the numerous safeguards currently in place and added by this legislation, americans are guaranteed their right of privacy by the fourth amendment to the united states constitution. i took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and the oath guides every action i take in this chamber. the fisa amendments re-authorization act ensures that the fourth amendment rights of americans are upheld and includes additional safeguards on top of constitutionally guaranteed rights. mr. speaker, we have reviewed the importance of a fisa amendments re-authorization act in stopping terrorist attacks and protecting the american people, but this point bears repeating. this program allows the government to obtain the communication of foreigners outside the united states, including foreign terrorist threats. in support of the counterterrorism efforts worldwide. and allowed us to respond to threats to our country. now, let me tell you a little bit what the 702 program is not.
it is not a bulk collection of data. it cannot be used to target americans, and it cannot be used to target individuals located inside the united states. mr. speaker, the fisa amendments re-authorization act is an example of what congress can accomplish when we work together to find solutions to our nation's weightiest challenges. mr. speaker, also, before i close my opening, will acknowledge that there is a lot of differences of opinion, as there should be upon this bill. but at the end of the day, progress has been made. protections have been implemented, and the security of our country must be taken into account. that is why this bill needs to pass and amendments that were brought forward need to fail. we need to push this forward and begin the process in continuing to protect our private citizens' personal responsibilities and liberties but also at the same time making sure our intelligence communities and those entrusted with the sacred duty of
protecting this country have the tools they need to do that. anything else would be less than what we should be here -- with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr. collins, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes for debate. mr. speaker, i'll yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i stand here today with the rest of my democratic colleagues in utter amazement at the dizzying dysfunction exhibited by our friends across the aisle. for reasons beyond understanding, we have to vote on the re-authorization of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act because late last year the republican leadership chose to prioritize massive tax cuts for their wealthy donors over the
safety of american citizens. like so many important issues, house republicans decided to punt on the re-authorization of 702 by simply extending it to january 19 of this year. coincidently the same date the government will possibly shut down. mr. speaker, as a former judge and the former vice chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence, i do occupy a unique advantage point in the ongoing debate -- vantage point in the ongoing debate to protect the fourth amendment of the constitution while also ensuring that those in the intelligence community have the tools they need to keep our country safe from those who wish to do us grave harm.
putting the finer points of this debate aside for a moment, i can tell you with complete certainty that such a debate deserves to be lengthy and thor rogue, neither of which have happened here. i was concerned to learn, if not a bit dismayed, that the house intelligence subcommittee, which has oversight jurisdiction of the national security agency, did not hold a single hearing on today's bill. in fact, the full committee did not even hold a single hearing on this important piece of legislation. think about that. as the republicans approach the need to discuss the re-authorization of one of the more important tools to fight terrorism that simultaneously brings along legitimate and
important fourth amendment concerns, the majority in all their wisdom thought it prudent to hold exactly zero hearings on such an important matter. that is a brazenly inept way to govern and to add insult to injury, i'm told that members of the committee were given about 36 hours to read the bill before having to vote it out of committee. side note here the bill they were given 36 hours to review is not actually the bill we have before us today. because the majority had to use a rules committee print to fix some of the most troublesome parts of the original bill in order to obtain my friend, the ranking member, adam schiff's
support. mr. speaker, without a doubt, that support did not come easily and important changes were made to the bill as it was presented to the committee in its original form. for example, mr. schiff was able to ensure that the republicans' unmasking language was removed from today's bill. the removal of such language ensures that one of the republicans' most heinous political stunts is not codified into law. this was and is a significant improvement. moreover, the republicans removed the controversial expansion of the definition of agent of foreign power which concerned privacy and technology groups. today's bill also addresses what collection, outs
the collection of communications that are not to or from a target, but rather communications that merely reference the target. the n.s.a. itself shut down this collection method earlier this year. the legislation before us today will allow such collection to resume but only if the n.s.a. first devises a way of doing so that addresses privacy concerns. obtain -- addresses privacy concerns, obtains permission from the foreign surveillance courts and congress doesn't object after a 30-day review period this may seem to be a better option than what i'm sure many, if not most, republicans wanted. which is the full scale reimplementation of abouts
collection. but considering how much difficulty the majority has in simply keeping the lights on around this place, i think it's fair to question their ability to provide meaningful oversight in just 30 days. again, is simply evidence for the need to return back to regular order under which bills are fully and fairly considered. regardless of where one comes down on this issue, i can assure you that there are members on both sides of the aisle that are sick and tired of being shut out of important policy discussions, excuse me, concerning subjects like those before us today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three
minutes to mr. sensenbrenner of wisconsin a fellow member of the judiciary committee and former chair of that committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: i rise in opposition to s. 139, the fisa re-authorization act. i have stood on this floor debating the patriot act after 9/11. i fought for reforms in 2015 with the u.s.a. freedom act. now we are debating the latest need to balance privacy and security. since congress last re-authorized section 702, we have learned a great deal about the operation of this program. the revelations have highlighted the risk that it poses to privacy and civil liberties. this program needs to be reformed. but mr. speaker, this is not the bill to do it. rather than providing meaningful meaning the fisa --
reform, the fisa re-authorization act would re-authorize section 02. however as we are aware the program routinely sweeps up millions of americans' emails. the warrant requirement in this bill requires only to fully predicated official investigations. and not to the hundreds of thousands of searches the f.b.i. runs every day. just to run down or check out a tip. the loopholes are too great to ensure proper protection. this morning's "washington post" article says in part, f.b.i. officials told aides of the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, last week, that under the proposed bill, they anticipate rarely if ever needing permission from the foreign intelligence surveillance court to review query results, according one of the aides. this was not denied by the
ranking member of the intelligence committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. schiff. we're going to hear an awful lot about warrants on the floor and how this fixes the problem. but here the f.b.i. has said in no uncertain terms to one of our congressional aides that they're never going to have to use this warrant requirement, which was drafted by the justice department that has opposed warrants all along. if ever we have seen the fox not only watching the henhouse but inside the henhouse, this is it. isn't even a fig leaf, big, small, or otherwise. it is simply a way to divert attention of this congress away from what is really going on. furthermore, the bill would provide a path for the n.s.a. to restart the practice of about collection, which has been described by the ranking member. the proposal grants some committees 30 days to review any
effort to under about collection back on. giving congress little or no say on this matter. we all know we can't do anything in 30 days around here. and yet the bill restricts us from doing that. finding a bipartisan and balanced solution is very possible. i know because i've done it twice. the patriot act and the freedom act. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. collins: i give the gentleman 30 more seconds. mr. sensenbrenner: the house judiciary committee committee passed the bipartisan liberty act with bipartisan votes this bill fails to do necessary reforms. the program should be authorized if done in the right way. this bill is the wrong way. it is time for congress to put the f for foreign back into fisa. there's no f for foreign in this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, mr.
speaker. i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from california, my friend, ms. lofgren from the judiciary subcommittee on immigration and border security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you very much. i agree with mr. sensenbrenner for the reasons he outlined that this bill should not become law. however, i am also speaking in favor of the amash amendment that has been put in order that would fix the problems he has so eloquently outlined. before 702 was enacted into law, the n.s.a. and f.b.i. would need to get a probable cause warrant to collect this information. we made a major change that allows this information to be collected when a foreigner is communicating with an american
and when you go to the about collection, which the underlying bill would codify, even when that doesn't occur, when there's merely discussion of foreigner, that's not what i think our constitution requires. and we did not outsource to the judicial branch or the executive branch the decision on what the constitution requires us to do. now, we have learned that there is a vast amount of information being collected. we can't go into the details of that in an open session. we have been told by admiral rogers the scope of this. d that the data page that is so-called incidentally collected because of the architecture of the internet could be searched for americans without a warrant
is not consistent with the protections outlined in the fourth amendment to the constitution. the amash amendment, which is basically the u.s.a. rights act, ends these back door searches by requiring a warrant. it ends reverse targeting. it bans the abouts collection. and prohibits the collection of domestic communication. prevents the misuse of information on americans. and is something that we should support. now, in a letter to the senate in october, a coalition of groups said this. the u.s.a. rights act which is essentially the amash amendment, is markedly superior to all current elect slative proposals to re-authorize section 702. who said that? the american civil liberties union and freedom works.
the naacp. but also the project and government oversight -- project on government oversight and color of change. s that broad, left-right coalition, that's come together even though there are many things we disagree on, because we agree on one thing. when we took an oath to defend the constitution on our first day of this session, we didn't take that oath to defend the constitution when it's convenient, when we feel like it. no. we took that oath to defend the constitution every day. in every way. with every bill. and without the amash amendment, this bill falls short. just a note on where we are in the timing. it's true that this has been delayed, i would say unconscionably delayed, for this proceeding. but if we have more time than
has been suggested, under the existing act, it provides, if there is an existing order from the fisa court, that order remains in effect even if the underlying bill lapses. we have an order that extends into late april. so we have a deadline but it's not this week and it's not next week. we owe it to our constituents, we owe it to our obligation to the constitution, to get this right. when jim sensenbrenner, who is someone who is -- nobody's going to question his conservative credentials. when judge poe, and zoe lofgren and jerry nadler come to the same agreement on the constitution, i would hope that our colleagues would listen. vote for the amash amendment and if it does not pass, vote against the bill. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves his time they feel gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield. a couple of things to clarify, this is an urgent matter. though the gentlelady spoke of this in the sense that the existing orders would stay in place she fails to mention and others fail to talk about that any new orders or currently existing orders being enforced by the intention community which is set under that pale of direction that they won't. i guess if you're satisfied protecting the orders, i guarantee you someone else woke up this morning wanting to do us harm, i want the intelligence community to be able to address that in a way that's prudent and proper which i feel like is happening here. i will not yield to the gentlelady. the other issue here, i want to make this very clear. there are strong opinions. i respect the gentlelady from california immensely, though i still will not yield.
i have had similar concerns that she has had off the process. and i have voted with her several times to move forward, but we have moved forward and there are, i believe, protections in this bill. so when we also talk about as we go forward and there's going to be a lot of passionate rhetoric about who is looking out for who and reminding us of our ocean, i took the oath here just as the gentlelady did when we started this new session, but i took another oath in the united states air force and served in iraq and also served in that time currently in the military. and when we have that oath as well, i will not take a back seat to anyone who can consciously disagree about where we are. this is a good bill. this is something i would love to see in different ways changed. but this is the art of where we are now and protecting our
country. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. cheney: i rise in support re-authorizing fisa 702. it is interesting to hear my colleagues talk about unconscionable delay in tactics or the need for regular order. just today on this floor, we have watched once again our colleagues on the other side of the aisle playing games. we have had this particular debate delayed by the games that their members have been playing over the course of the last several hours with motion after motion to adjourn. and that is, mr. speaker, i believe is unconscionable. this is a bipartisan bill. the ranking member of the intelligence committee and the chairman of the intelligence committee worked very hard to come to an agreement. the bill goes too far in terms of beginning the process that we cannot begin of putting walls
up. all of us lived through 9/11. and we know, mr. speaker, that one of the things that we saw that day was what can happen when we make it much more difficult for our law enforcement and our intelligence agencies to connect the dots. much more difficult to stop terrorist attacks against this nation. mr. speaker, this is a bill that goes directly towards those issues and one of the most important pieces of policy and of authority that the national security agency has. and i think it's very important for people listening to this debate to recognize that this authority is an authority that allows surveillance of foreign nationals on foreign territory not in the united states. and i would urge my colleagues particularly when we've got a bill that is bipartisan product, that's a product that has been worked on and agreed to in a bipartisan manner, that it is unconscionable for them to delay, unconscionable to hold the nation's security hostage. and we are seeing it not just
with respect to this particular piece of legislation. we are seeing it with respect to the entire negotiations under way today over the budget for the nation. we have seen a situation where as they did today accused us of holding daca hostage and daca individuals hostage. the democrats in this house, mr. speaker, are holding our national security hostage and doing it with respect to the funds that our military feeds as well. we are a nation today that is facing grave and growing threats and facing demands on our intelligence service and professionals and men and women in uniform. i think every member of this body who decides to play games rather than do what is right and what is necessary and what our constitutional obligation and our oath requires ought to think as they are doing that, what does it mean to the mothers and fathers across this nation who
have children who are deployed for the nation who know we are sending their children into harm's way and the democrats in this body consistently continue to hold up the funding that our military needs and in this case particular to hold up the re-authorization of this crucial piece of policy. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the re-authorization of this bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. friend's by my assertion that today with protests with reference to daca that members of my party were concern. i'm also amused that there in the majority and she accuses us
of delaying, when in fact this measure was scheduled two or three months ago and could have been brought to the floor, but, no, you were busy about tax cuts and didn't get around to allowing for this important matter to be brought to the floor. mr. speaker, to respond to my good friend from georgia, i mrs. love conds to green. ms. lofgren: i wanted to respond, the n.s.a. will not go dark. we are collecting the content of phone calls, emails, text messages, videos of americans utting it in a data base and searching it without a probable cause warrant. that's the state today. and that will continue until reform is done.
it will not go dark and i thought it was important to make that clear. i thank the gentleman, i know you want to yield to my colleague from the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i stand by my statement. it -- the statement is we will not go dark. but having -- how we deal with that, there is an interesting issue and there is an issue. and this is a debate we could have and need to have on the floor but there is a difference of opinion here and in this instance with the pervasive efforts put in place, i believe this program is worth keeping. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, a former f.b.i. special agent.
mr. fitzpatrick: i rise in strong support of reauthorizing section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which is due to expire. as a 14-year f.b.i. special agent and counterterrorism agent, i'm an eyewitness to the importance of this program and deliberate and lawful manner in which it's used. the fact is, section 702 is a critical tool that the intelligence community uses properly to target non-u.s. persons located outside of the united states to acquire information that is vital to our nation's security. this crucial program has operated under strict rules and carefully overseen by all three branches of our government to protect the privacy and civil liberties of all americans. as we have seen both in our country and abroad, proper surveillance and law enforcement is vital to protect us against terror attacks especially lone attacker scenarios.
as isis continues to lose territory, our intelligence community has warned we will see more of these attacks than traditional conspiracies. y about this wra program. he said despite the high volume of threats there are few dots thash connected in regard to these more loosely situations. information already lawfully obtained by the f.b.i. is crucial and as you said understanding, quote, which threats are real and which ones are more as pierational. 702 allows intelligence first to determine whether a a kit from state or local law enforcement is credible and can head off potential threats. allowing section 702 to expire would leave america vulnerable at a time when we need this protection the most.
as director wray stated, if section 702 is walked back, we will be starting to rebuild the wall that existed before 9/11. mr. speaker, with today's temporary landscape, we cannot go backwards when legal means exist to keep americans safe. i urge my colleagues to support this vital national security measure. the safety and security of the families we represent depend on the passage of this measure. let us get this done for them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i yield four the s to the zwirked , ms. woman from texas jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank
the the gentleman from florida. particularly sharing with us his experience on the intelligence committee and thank him for mentioning i serve as the ranking member on the crime, terrorism homeland security and investigations. in that capacity, that committee encounters not only our nation's law enforcement but issues dealing with terrorism, including the work on homeland security. with that in mind, i want to simply say to my colleagues and certainly to my good friend who served and dedicated his life to the f.b.i. for 14 years, none of us who owe the past couple of months will take a back seat to channing the f.b.i. and recognizing the f.b.i. for the very value ant work that it does. being on the judiciary committee, i have worked with almost every f.b.i. director and agents, particularly in my particular jurisdiction, and
have been engaged in discussions on the resources and needs of that organization. again, we thank them for their service. i would offer to say that the position i take now today is to protect the f.b.i. and to protect the american people. with that in mind, i would like to submit into the record an article written by sheila jackson lee protecting americans dated october 16, 2007. i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: that article suggests that we have the responsibility to protect america and americans. and i would make the point to my good friend who mentioned that men and women or families sending their young people over to battle grounds are absolutely right. and those young people that are going over to battle grounds are going over on the basis of freedom. their parents sacrificed the fact these loved ones sacrificed their loved ones because they
believed in the freedom of this nation. section 702, there is no freedom in this particular bill. and that is why we need to address the question in a thoughtful manner. i don't mind if we extend this to have a longer debate so we can work through some of our concerns. let me be clear. s. 139 fails to address the core concern of congress. the government's use of section 702 against united states' citizens in investigations that have nothing to do with national security. that is the crux of our advocacy for the amash amendment joined by myself and many others, it is not to undermine the security of this nation. it is to give substance to those families who sacrifice and send their young men and women to far away places. it is riddled with loopholes and
applies to predicated official f.b.i. investigations not to the hundreds of thousands of searches that the f.b.i. runs every day to run down a lead. . 139 exascerbates problems by codifying the so-called about collection, a type of surveillance that will shut down after it twice failed to meet the 4th amendment scrutiny. it is opposed by technology companies, privacy and civil liberty groups across the political spectrum. let me read briefly what the amash amendment says. it is not something that would stop security, surveillance and work in its tracks. what it does is that except as provided in subparagraph c or d, no officer, agent or employee may conduct a queery of information acquired under subsection a to obtain information about a person if there is reason to believe that the person is a united states
person. protecting the first of freedom of speech and all of that, but matched with the important amendment of the 4th amendment, which, of course, is unreasonable search and seizures. an application by the attorney general to judge to a judge that describe the determination of the attorney general that the -- probable cause to believe that such communications provide evidence of a crime, such person is a agent of a foreign power. this is a minimal standard. we are missing what our role is here. it is not to rush through a fisa bill that's been delayed by my republican friends. more importantly, it is to do right by the american people. we are not doing right by the
american people. i remember fighting against reverse targeting, a major issue in our work on the freedom act and the patriot act. now today, in 2017, going into 201, in 2018, it is important to remember that 9/11 was to not turn terror on americans, it was to protect us from terrorism and to withstand that with the upholding of the constitution. i ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expire the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i think one of the issues here is this discussion of riddled with loopholes and riddled with anybody. t's a reminder that agencies cannot doran dom searches. let's push back on the facts of the case. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from washington, my good friend, mr.
heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heck: i rise today to ask my colleagues to pause, take a step back, reject the rule and give us a chance to do it better. fisa re-authorization is inarguably one of the most important votes we'll take in this congress because the stake are so high. civil liberties are the core of our civil rights. we are asked to take action that affects them in the name of keeping us safe, i get that. but it's critical we get it right. i think we can do better. to make decisions of this magnitude, we should have the most robust process possible. full and open debate. input from the stake holders, thoughtful deliberations by the members and the process for this bill thus far has decidedly not been that, not been great. it was written and we written -- rewritten in secret and with minimal debate or stake holder
im-- stake holder input. i'm optimistic because i've seen it change in the last few day. i think we have an opportunity here. the administration is suddenly engaged, we're seeing vie grant vibrant debate from the members of the technology sector, members have had serious discussions here on the floor today, in the halls, offering amendments which are not being allowed save one. we are being asked to shut that all down, that opportunity, and push through an extension that will run for six years. frankly, stop and think. six years in the world of technology is an eternity. for all these reasons i ask my fellow members to join me in opposing this rule and instead allow the house an opportunity to work its will, to take a little more time and do it better. because we really do need to wrestle with privacy, what privacy means in a world where our entire personal lives are
stored somewhere online as ones and zeros. frankly that's happening at an even faster pace than it is now. we need to debate the fourth amendment -- how the fourth amendment protects us against searches and seizures applying to digital records. we're all being rendered into nothing but a mass i storehouse of ones and zeros. the tensions were balanced between civil liberties and national security is a debate as old as this country but they're not mutually exclusiveful they're hard, they're darn hard, but they're not mutually exclusive and they're not impossible. i know well how many threats we face around the world. i don't take them lightly. the fact that we have not faced another major terrorist attack since 9/11 is a testament to the skill and hard work of the intelligence community. i tip my hat to them. i am absolutely committed to giving them the tools they need to keep us safe, consistent with
our constitutional rights. but we live in an era of the most powerful spying tools the world has ever known. 25 years ago, conversations were ephemeral. they were conducted in person or over the phone. but now, now, they occur over email or chat. they are archived forever. our medical, financial, legal records are all online. so are our photos. our cell phones track us everywhere we go. the data available on us is unprecedent and the fundamental prince nofle bill of rights is that we have the right to keep our data private. we need new safeguards to ensure that so by rejecting this rule, we have a chance to do it better. and in so doing, both keep us safe and protect our constitutional rights.
for these reasons, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to reject the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i would like to ask how much time is left on both sides and inquire of my good friend from florida if he has more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has nine and a half minutes. mr. collins: how much for our side? the speaker pro tempore: nine minutes. mr. hastings: i advice i have no further speakers and am prepared to close. mr. collins: we are prepared to close. mr. hastings: the united states house of representatives is known as the people's house. yet the people's representatives continuously are shut out of policy discussion after discussion. they're shut out of writing bill
after bill. and they're shut out of offering any meaningful amendment quite simply, mr. speaker, if the people's representatives are shut out, then the people are shut out. and if you look around at how the majority is running this place, through a historically closed process, the result is not at all pretty. i have some advice for my republican friends. if, like this side of the aisle, you spent more time working on policies that help the american people instead of the wealthy and rich corporations, who are, i might add, doing just fine, you'd likely not only see more legislative successes, but you will be able to spend more time on important issues like this
critically important issue of the extension of section 702. mr. speaker, as is clearly evident, democrats remain ready to work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish all that remains left to do for the american people. we're ready to fund the government and provide for smart investments for the future of our country. hundredsdy to pull the of thousands of dreamers out of unnecessary limbo and provide them with the status they deserve. we're ready to go forward with comprehensive immigration. we are ready to provide the funding and authorization needed to give millions of low-income children the health insurance they need. we are ready to fix our roads and our bridges and our railways
and air trafficking. we are here and waiting for time -- but time is running out. mr. speaker, i urge a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate my gentleman friend from florida , my cohort on the rules committee but i also want to say, i appreciate his advice but also as a reminder back to my friend from florida, we have spent time in talking about things that matter and things that were messed up. in fact we spent a lot of time in this house and passed a health care bill because people in my district who call me regularly over the holiday as the new year approached saying we can't get insurance or the insurance i'm provided no doctor will accept. we have spent time on that. i believe that is real. we spent time in this body over the past few years working on a bill called dodd-frank that in my district decimated community banks, made lending harder, made
businesses have more trouble hiring people to put them to meaningful work. yes, we're spending time on things that were not well thought out. tax reform was well thought out and is helping americans in all districts, including my friends, and i believe we'll continue to hear more about that as the days progress. but today, again, and many times, we are focused on a bill that has serious debate. it has the retail of some that can take and lack at one thing and see a difference. i agree with my friend on that. that's whee we're having debate. that's why there'll be amendments on this bill that i oppose, some will support it. the current administration does not support the amendment. the current administration supports the bill and the relevant community -- committees that have worked on this bill support the underlying bill. number two, one of the issues we talked about today and one of the things we have to be careful
of is going back to something supported by both party the recommendation of the 9/11 commission report that said we have to take seriously the foreign -- i respect greatly my friend, former speaker on our side that this is about foreign surveillance. this is the foreign part of this. and we've got to make sure that we have that capability and really this bill if you continue and especially looking at the amendment, would build walls that led to the very problems that we experienced before 9/11. and then there's this last case that continually came up, it was about the about collection which is no longer being done in practice and it has been said, we're just codifying it, they can bring it back willy nily. let's remind ourselves what has to happen. they have to decide that one, they can. and they have to bring it to the fisc, the court, oh wait, hold on a second. let's think about what just happened here. they have to bring it back to
the very court that said, oh, we've got a concern about this is why they have suspended it. but mr. speaker, let's also talk about why this even occurred to start with with the court. it was because the agencies, the intelligence communities self-reported an issue they needed to look at. it was not hidden. it was self-reported to the court. this is the protections built into this legislation. now we can debate whether they go far enough or they're not enough or they're properly built. this is sort of like a debate that needs to happen. but be careful where we go here. to let the american people be led to believe that things that are happening, that are not really happening. do not let it be led to believe there are not things in place set up by even friends who are spoken today, maybe even against it, that were put in place to protect the personal rights of our citizens.
and let's never forget that the end result of this is keeping our nation safe while balancing the privacy concerns of our own citizens. which is never outside of my thoughts and discussion. for years. the five i've been in this body and worked on the judiciary committee. we have pushed this envelope. pushing it for protection while at the same time balancing our national security needs. i will never say for the most part that there's a perfect bill to ever hit this floor. i will -- i would think my friend would probably agree with me on that. so you have to find the balance and say, what is the aim of the bill? what is it doing? how did it go about? i believe this strikes that balance. you can have disagreement bus at the end of the day my question to you is, is your push to make something better willing to turn out the lights or go dark on watching those who wish to do us harm? don't bank on the fact that the intelligence community will just
continue on under what has been happening and not look at what could happen even as we are in this chamber debating this bill. i want them to be able to see clearly the threat to this country. i want them to use the processes in place to protect american citizens in this process, which they are doing which by the way highlighted by the fact that the self-report that led to the about collection being stopped. but i never would want to put think security of this country in doubt when they cannot look for their own shaky legal ground of what they can and cannot do to protect us. this goes back to a time in our country's history where we have technology was just recently changing. i want them to have the ability to continue this process under the supervision of a plan that is put in place and where those need to be adjusted, they can be adjusted. are there other needs that need to be addressed? yes, there are. the chairman and i have spoken
on those already. the judiciary committee also is looking into these. at this point in time, this bill is one that i believe strikes the balance that is critical for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to have the tools they need to do their job. our civil liberties and right to privacy are fundamental to our identity as americans and i believe this strikes that proper balance. as we go forward, these are the debates we have we need to have this in this chamber. at the end of the day it's about getting the bill and process right so we can achieve the aims that need to be. as we move forward, i would say, this is what happens. this is how we work. and for now, i believe this is the proper way to go about it. i look forward to supporting this rule and the underlying bill to protect our nation, the american people rks and also to preserve our civil liberties. so mr. speaker, with alming of that -- with all of that i yield
back the balance of my time and prove the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 682 will be followed by five-minute voits on ordering the previous question on house resolution 681 and adoption of house resolution 681 if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote.